March 15, 2012

I saw that he said that because I just got a fundraising email from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee which begins:

Here's Mitt Romney's proposal for reducing the deficit, according to an interview he gave yesterday:

"Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."

That's right, he said he'd get rid of Planned Parenthood -- the more than 90-year-old organization that one in five American women has depended on for health care, and that for many women is their only option for cancer screenings, clinical breast exams, and critical preventive care. Apparently, we can't afford it.

Here's what he says we can afford: Protecting and expanding tax cuts for the wealthy, and "that includes the top 1 percent."

Mitt Romney's actually willing to cut off women's access to health care to help fund tax benefits for millionaires and billionaires.

If you had any doubts that these attacks are real, or think they're just a side effect from a nasty GOP primary season, consider this a reality check.

I'm urged to donate to the Democratic Party "to fight back against Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and every Republican in Congress who repeatedly thinks a woman's health is their chip to barter."

I looked up the quote to put it in context. Of course, Romney wasn't talking about hurting Planned Parenthood in any way other than cutting funding:

As for ways to reduce debt, he suggests a few cuts.

"The test is pretty simple. Is the program so critical, it's worth borrowing money from [C]hina to pay for it? And on that basis of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one. Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, I'd eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities," he said.

There you have it. Make of it what you will. The lines are being drawn. Do you want these institutions starved?

Considering the number of letters I got during the Bush years from Planned Parenthood asking me to give them money to get rid of Bush, I would say they don't deserve any federal money. If they want to take federal money, they should stay out of politics.

In any case, anybody with a working brain would know POTUS can't constitutionally "get rid of" a private "charity" - although Santorum would probably be dumb enough to try.

That the DNC thinks this will get some money out of the useful idiots says more about what the Democrat Party thinks of its base (and the trolls) than anything the loyal Althouse commentariat could come up with.

It also goes without saying that it’s not exactly a profile in courage for a Republican presidential candidate to say he’s in favor of those cuts.

I get that Romney’s playing the safe route and would probably lose more votes than he’d gain if he talked more forcefully about things like entitlement reform, eliminating or cutting farm subsidies, and phasing out tax expenditures which are more widely popular, particularly among middle class voters. But I think we’ve been at the point for a long time where those hard decisions need to be made and I fear they’re not going to be made unless and until someone is elected on a platform of making them.

I had no idea Planned Parenthood was even federally funded at all. From what I've seen, it's a thoroughly partisan organization; I assumed from this that it was privately funded through donations.

Apparently we spend $400 million dollars on this. Holy shit.

How in the fuck does this organization spend $400 million dollars? And that's just a third of its budget. They perform 300,000 abortions per year. Even if they never charge any woman anything for an abortion, that's $4,000 per abortion.

Yes, I'd say we can trim that contribution from the federal government, down to about, oh I don't know, zero fucking dollars and zero fucking cents. What a waste of money and life.

Talk of balancing the budget by hitting Planned Parenthood, the NEA, NEH...NPR...etc...isn’t about the debt. It’s about keeping money from going to “those” people. In this instance, “those” people are women and liberals.

You will never ever ever make a real difference in the debt by hitting discretionary spending.

If Planned Parenthood is so important and so vital, then why can't they raise money privately? Get a bunch of Hollywood actors to hold a telethon for it. Why does it have to take money from the federal government? No one on the left even tries to answer this question.

It also goes without saying that it’s not exactly a profile in courage for a Republican presidential candidate to say he’s in favor of those cuts.

I get that Romney’s playing the safe route and would probably lose more votes than he’d gain if he talked more forcefully about things like entitlement reform, eliminating or cutting farm subsidies, and phasing out tax expenditures which are more widely popular, particularly among middle class voters.

Thing is, he remembers what happened to Dad - who never struck me as being anywhere near as bright as his son, BTW - so he tries to play it safe.

But, yes, what Milton said is just the barest of starters and what Ann Coulter points to as his "true" Conservatism.

Something needs to be cut. Why can't PP subsist on fat cat leftwing donations? Certainly rich leftwingers can afford to fund the abortion machine.The fact is, we tax payers pay for PP to cover abortions and the democrats want more of that. All while crying about how the GOP is going to steal all of the sponges.

We can fund low-income healthcare, male female whatever. Should we be forced to fund abortion?

We really, really need to start changing the narrative or we are simply doomed.

When proposing a reduction in the rate of increase in spending of any government program gets you branded as a heartless puppy kicker who wants to starve children and take us back to the dark ages, we have quite a job ahead of us.

If we can't even reduce funding for public frickin' broadcasting, much less eliminate it, how are we going to tackle entitlements, PP, NEA, farm subsidies, etc.?

Pasta-man is right to be outraged (tho he's late to the party--just NOW you're noticing?) Think what that 400,000 million could do if applied to truly worthy organizations like, oh, say, "Soldiers Angels" or "Valor-IT"--or simply returned to the tax-payers from whence it came and let them make their own decisions as to how to spend their own money. But I am a delusional phantasizer--my social and intellectual "bettors" in Congress obviously know better..

Well thanks to the promotion I got toward the end of last year, and despite having the full load taken out for taxes each pay, I will be writing an additional check to Obama this year to the tune of $4000.

And no, we're not even close to his definition of rich. But at least ill sleep soundly knowing my money will help some woman I don't know will be able to get free birth control.

It's a just another Lefty propaganda circus trying to create a dependent constituency by telling a specific group how "oppressed" they are and how they can't survive without the Democrat Party to protect them.

See Jesse Jackson and his "Your patch is too small" speech at the '88 (IIRC) Demo Convention.

Oh, my God with the "women's health" thing already. I am not rendered incapable of supporting myself, including my health, just because I have a vagina. If men have to pay for their own healthcare, why would I not?

The Democrats know better than most of us realize, based on experience, that their voters are complete morons, and will reliably offer up the votes necessary to impoverish and cannibalize America's future.

And too many women, wanting succor and comfort at someone else's expense, including future generations, will come to heel, snap back in line and vote the Democrat line.

When I was in the military, organizations were banned from approaching us for donations. Instead, they were all rounded up into a book that we were given once a year, like a catalog. This catalog had a paragraph that described what the organization did, told us how much of our donation would go to administrative costs and how much went to the work of the charity. We would check off whatever we wanted to donate, and then disbursing would take care of the rest. Why not do the same for America? Add it to the taxes we file every year. “The US Budget allots x% to go to charities such as the NEA, etc. If you do not select your own charities, then they will go to default charities x1, x2, x3, etc. Support an approved charity to receive funding from your taxes by filling out the following form.”

"The test is pretty simple. Is the program so critical, it's worth borrowing money from [C]hina to pay for it?"

That was when Mitt got my vote. A bottom line kinda answer to the spending problem - if we apply this test to federal spending, we are going to balance the budget, because most of the added deficit since the Dems took Congress in 2006 will fail this test. On the other hand, the money for a lot of our military spending is worthwhile borrowing from the Chinese - esp. since in the future, a lot of that military spending may just be used to resist Chinese hegemony.

The Dems have done their usual funding shuffle, increasing federal spending as a percentage of GDP by 5% over the last 5 years, and then want to cut pre-existing programs and spending in order to start balancing the budget. Most notable of these, of course, is Defense spending. That 5% of GDP, all the "green energy" political giveaways, crony capitalism for GM, GE, PP, ObmaCare, unemployment extensions, etc., are all sacrosanct. Locked in. Off the table.

Which is the beauty of Romney's test. It supplies a metric against which funding for programs can be evaluated. Which, of course is hated by the Dems, liberals, and progressives, because most of their spending priorities would fail the test.

Sure, Debbie whats-her-name may get some more contributions from women totally disconnected from the news of the day and some rabid feminists, but I think that she does not do her cause that much good by taking this out of context, because when put back into the context of Romney's funding test, the statement by Romney is so damming to the Dems and their spending priorities.

It is widely accepted that women are hypergamous: they seek men who are richer, more educated, more powerful, more intelligent, etc, than themselves. But what do they use to attract such men?

Sex.

Sex is used as a lure to attract men.

Pregnancy is used as a way to bind men to the woman.

And the resulting child is a tool to extract wealth (via “child” support) from a man who is no longer willing to directly support the woman.

Thus, sex is a weapon by which women exploit men for personal gain.

Sure, not every woman is this mercenary. We’re talking about liberal feminists, here.

But giving birth changes a woman’s body, makes it less maidenly for maintaining attraction or attracting the next/more powerful man. A woman with a child has more difficulty attracting the more powerful/richer men who can choose from childless maidens.

So the weapon of sex must be used carefully and sparingly. If it results in an unwanted pregnancy at the wrong time with the wrong man, it drastically reduces the feminist’s ability to fulfill her hypergamous urges.

So to give women more power, the weapon must be more effectively controlled. Thus, the priority of maintaining and expanding the three underpinning, most vital feminine rights:

1) Contraception to prevent birth until the strategically best moment

2) Abortion at will to deal with the times contraception doesn’t work, or if the strategic gambit of pregnancy turns out to be ineffective in binding the desirable man to her.

3) The primacy of women’s rights in domestic violence, family court, and child support

A feminist is a woman who has fully embraced the idea that women and men are in a zero-sum game, women must defeat men to get what they want, and sex is one of their most important weapons for doing so.

So of course a feminist thinks *all* women should understand this. Further, any woman who doesn’t support the expansion of woman’s power through control of sex undermines her ability to use sex effectively.Especially since the push is not to maintain or expand the rights to contraception, abortion, and child support, but to ensure it is given to women at no cost to them.

The proof of this theory? What is the method that feminists decided was best to force men to give in?

With-holding sex. Sex as a weapon of manipulation against powerful men.

"It's a just another Lefty propaganda circus trying to create a dependent constituency by telling a specific group how "oppressed" they are and how they can't survive without the Democrat Party to protect them."

There's no "trying to create;" they've already created the voting block - they're simply maintaining it so that it remains reliably productive.

There's a 55 gallon drum full of debt, and Mitt proposes the equivalent of taking out a quarter-teaspoon.

KChiker at 10:57 is right.

I think a good idea -- for a start -- would be to cut spending and staffing levels back to levels from, oh, 1999. Maybe 2003. Prairie Wind has a good list of Departments to eliminate completely. Then you adjust things like Medicaid and go after military/industrial spending.

Cutting funds only for "those people" serves only to increase lobbying, acrimony and gridlock in DC. I'm not sure how that is good for the country as a whole.

Of course. They do the same with minorities because creating a dependency is what gives them power as well as purpose. The worst thing for a liberal is for a minority to become self sufficient because that robs them of purpose and power.

Just cut everything by 33%. Pick a date in the past to get your baseline, so no one fudges their budget numbers.

I have so many friends here in DC who are federal employees. If I had a nickel for every time they said "we have to find something to spend the remainder of our budget on, or they'll give us less money next year".

Fricken madness.

Oh btw, Team Obama used some accounting tricks to get ObamaCare past CBO scoring. Its going to cost at least double what he promised.

I'm tired of womyn's rights masqerading as women's health. They need to be audited.

Audited, hell. They need to be RICO'd. But, all of Wasserman-Test's shrieking aside, this is just boob bait for the bubbas, as someone once said. Mittens can talk as tough as he wants on the trail, but any halfway intelligent person realizes that even with the House and Senate, he'd never make a dent in any of those bloated cuttlefish agencies.

"How in the fuck does this organization spend $400 million dollars? And that's just a third of its budget. They perform 300,000 abortions per year. Even if they never charge any woman anything for an abortion, that's $4,000 per abortion".

"And they still outsource mammograms and lab tests for biospies.

So that's $400 million for manual breast exams. And a PR campaign to attack conservatives."

Here is the problem. PP cannot legally receive money for abortions from the federal government, which appears to be their main source of business, and outsources mammograms, so what do they do with the money?

The reality, of course, is that money is fungible, and so they can use all the money they get elsewhere for the abortions, and use the federal money to cover overhead, lobbying, and prescribing birth control pills. At least some of the federal money is really being spent on abortions, but they have to pretend like it isn't.

Of course, the problem for Debbie whats-her-name is that it is this reality, that federal money is illegally going to pay for abortions, that she is trying to use to rile up her base.

I'm tired of womyn's rights masqerading as women's health. They need to be audited.

Audited, hell. They need to be RICO'd.

But, all of Wasserman-Test's shrieking aside, this is just boob bait for the bubbas, as someone once said. Mittens can talk as tough as he wants on the trail, but any halfway intelligent person realizes that even with the House and Senate, he'd never make a dent in any of those bloated cuttlefish agencies.

Yep. Every damned one of them. When we get the house in order, then maybe we consider a few luxuries like NEA or NEH.

When you're underwater in debt, sometimes you have to cut the cable off, do away with the trip to the nice restaurant, stay home for vacay and not upgrade to the newest Playstation. In other words, you pay for the bare necessities and discard the luxury spending.

"... If seeking a tax increase on wealthier individualsmakes for “class warfare”, even Reagan was a class warrior..."

I have to wonder how much taxes should increase on the wealthy? Cause as its defined by Obama, that's households making $250,000 or more. We make well under that and I'm looking at a healthy tax bill this year. So it stands to reason that if I am ambitious enough to shoot for that magic number I can look forward to paying even more? How much? 30%,.40%,.50%?

And then when 50% isn't enough to satiate the Government, then how much?

If Mittens had any sense he would do an Obama and start an exist plan from LBJ's Great Society and get rid of FDR's union and farm cluster f@&k. That and open up all of America's potential oil and gas reserves. An IBD article stated the US has 1.4 trillion barrels of known oil, enough to last this county over 100 years at present consumption. Do that along with genuine tax and regulatory reform and he will be unlucky if the economy doesn't grow at 7% per year on average for both terms. An added benefit we get to kiss of the Arabs and the Russians.

Debbie, what a dumb bitch, worse she is my congress person. If only the republicans would find and fund a challenger.

I don't think that eliminating this agency would be a good idea. I worked as a contractor to the USDA for most of a decade, and much of what they do is essential.

Much of my USDA work was for the Forest Service. They have stewardship of a large percentage of our federal lands, and have been chronically underfunded to deal with this obligation for decades. A lot of their older programs have similar fairly straight forward justifications.

That isn't to say that there isn't a lot that could, and should, be cut from their budget - e.g. crop subsidizations, school lunches, etc.c

There you have it. Make of it what you will. The lines are being drawn. Do you want these institutions starved?

Wow. "Starved"? I'll mark this down as yet more indication that Ann is trying mightily to find a reason to not admit she was wrong ( or naive ) in 2008, and that she can still rationalize pulling the 2012 lever for the dreamy-eyed, sonorous-voiced One.

Romney doesn't care about cutting PP funding any more than Wasserman Shultz does.

Romney plays the social conservative here and the Dems play along, with EVERYONE knowing that Romney is completely insincere and is just pandering.

And with him throwing in Amtrak and the National Endowment for the Arts, etc., here is a good example of how Romney JUST DOESN'T GET IT. He is going to tinker at the edges, a tweak here and a tweak there, as if a couple hundred million dollars really matters when we are in need of not spending TRILLIONS of dollars.

John Most Electable McCain did the same thing, making a big deal out of earmarks. We are WAY PAST earmarks.

But, by all means, let's elect the guy who will slow the bus off the cliff down to 70 mph, rather than Obama's 100 mph.

I believe what he meant to say was federal government funding of Planned Parenthood. He can't get rid of the private organization and I think he knows that. I took it to mean funding for Planned Parenthood.

I mean, he isn't stupid and he does have a J.D. from Harvard Law (cum laude).

"Are you on prescription medication? Or are you just another rube who fell for Obama's HopeyChage crap? How do you rationalize it? Can you even face yourself in the mirror?”

If you think that no rational person could make these statements, you may have a really hard time coping with the next 8 months....

If Obama wins (which Intrade considers likely although who knows)...are you going to going to imagine a boogeyman such as ACORN or somehow decide that the election was “stolen”...in order to make sense of what you consider so irrational?

That isn't to say that there isn't a lot that could, and should, be cut from their budget - e.g. crop subsidizations, school lunches, etc.c

Regarding the USDA and some other government agencies...Starving the Beast.

There is some core purpose in some of these agencies that has value.

The problem is that they have become bloated behemoths that have gone far far beyond their original core functions.

If I were Queen of The World and able to be in charge ....aaaah....wait...where was I?

She would institute an immediate 10 to 15% reduction across the board for ALL agencies and a subsequent 5% reduction annually for the next few years or until we have reached a 45% reduction (at least) from today's spending.

Because the Queen is compassionate and wants to prevent civil war and chaos.... she would do this in increments instead of tomorrow as she really wishes to do.

He is going to tinker at the edges, a tweak here and a tweak there, as if a couple hundred million dollars really matters when we are in need of not spending TRILLIONS of dollars.

I'm not so sure that's true. Mitt's a businessman, not a lawyer. He knows the realities of what can and should be cut to advance a company's success.

Whether or not he is truly willing to face the inevitable blowback for skewering various sacred cows remains to be seen.

The fact that no Congressman has seriously pushed to impose salary or term limits once in office is the writing on the wall, but that's where I think the fact that Mitt is already super-mega wealthy is a real boon.

He's super wealthy AND has a moral/religious code that (I imagine) trumps the immediate desire/pull to simply settle into office and 'play ball' and start lining the pockets of himself and his friends as usual.

"... During World War II, when Prime Minister Winston Churchill was asked to cut arts funding in favor of the war effort, he simply replied, “then what are we fighting for?”.."

Alas, ‘tis not a real Churchill quote:

According to the definitive source, Richard Langworth:This alleged quo¬ta¬tion was raised a few years ago in the Vil¬lage Voice and is all over the web, but it is not in any of Churchill’s 15 mil¬lion speeches, papers, let¬ters, arti¬cles or books. http://www.pindropacoustics.com/2010/08/17/is-this-churchill-quote-real/

DBQ: Excellent plan. In the meantime, before you are crowned, I would suggest that Republicans gain control of the language used in the conversation. It has to be explained that when "cuts" are discussed they mean that the increases will be smaller than hoped for. We have to make this point over and over and over. Because when Congress "cuts" they simply do not CUT the way you or I or any human being CUTS.

Whenever I am approached by those nice young men and women asking for money for PP, I politely decline, saying:

"I fully support the mission of your organization. I think it's wonderful that you make birth control and abortion cheap and available to all comers. I think you have improved many actual lives. But I really resent the fact that you take money from me without asking. As soon as you stop doing that, I will gladly donate to your efforts, out of the goodness of my heart."

Subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax breaks are circa ten times what PP gets annually.

Funny how Mitt didn't get around to them on his list of things to cut. But then, obviously they're hurting SO bad right now, it's vital to help keep them solvent with more of your tax money, amirite?

Not to mention that Republican magic thinking automatically redefines removing tax cuts as tax increases - & the sacrosanct Code Of Norquist must be obeyed at any cost. Surely GOP voters' bankrupt children will thank them for sparing them the dread spectre of an America where taxes are over 30%, since such an apocalypse would be worse than 50 Hitlers.

Amtrak would make money if you simply took out the long-distance routes ... but the obvious solution doesn't look as "tough" as starving what could easily be a profitable railroad - or as ideologically pure (& the recent rabid fetish for political purity in the GOP is both a wonder & an ongoing source of Comedy Gold), a matter of no small concern for a former moderate like Romney.

As for "getting rid of Obamacare" - not just folly, but very expensive folly at that. Insurers will soak their customers for every cent of the cost of yet another major change in conditions of doing business, & the law that might have stopped them from doing so will be gone.

The cost to regular Americans would be far more dire. Welcome back, recission! Welcome back, arbitrary massive premium hikes! Pay your own way or bust, formerly-covered freeloaders! Your kid just got leukemia? Sorry - their diaper rash is now a pre-existing condition. Try fighting those tumors with some echinacea or healing crystals instead, maybe?

It's politically wise of the GOP to try their best to scrap it before the (ridiculously delayed) major benefits of the bill come into effect in 2014: after that, the odds of such an idea being anything other than political cyanide quickly approach nil. But some are already noticing that the bill's passage didn't lead to mandatory Satan-worship, bodies in the streets or Teh Dark Ages 2.0 as was repeatedly promised in 2008-2010 - the marks are wising up. The Republicans know this & are now soft-pedalling repeal-&-replace in Congress (where it actually matters) accordingly.

Look for the word "Obamacare" to disappear down the Memory Hole by 2015 - after which Republicans will solemnly claim they were always in favor of it (see: integration, abolition of Jim Crow laws, Medicare, et al).

I don't know that I think we should cut funding to things like the National Endowment for the Humanities specifically, but I found out while working on a grant-funded project at a university a few years ago that university administration often take a HUGE cut of any grant money awarded to specific projects from sources like the National Endowment for the Humanities. Up to 50% of the grant awarded.

While I'm all for funding educational institutions, we shouldn't be funding them by allowing them to take money away from the actual projects that are going to be worth something to us, presumably only to pay the salary of someone who sits in an office far-removed from any of the educational institution's real purpose and value.

These institutions have slowly turned into leeches and we've let them. Get rid of it.

I wasn't referencing anyone's intelligence. You implied that not subsidizing PBS would be unfair to poor Americans who want to watch Downtown Abbey, and the like. That was a stretch.

I have a soft spot for the concept of public broadcasting. I wish it could be justified. But, think of the nation as a family and we're all supposed to agree on what to watch. That's asking a lot. I love NPR. But it's hard not to notice that the people working there, um, hate me. Hate people who think and vote like me. That sucks.

"Surely GOP voters' bankrupt children will thank them for sparing them the dread spectre of an America where taxes are over 30%, since such an apocalypse would be worse than 50 Hitlers."

I hope you're talking about 30% on the bottom 50% (instead of the current near-zero). The numbers are out there and the calculations can be done. If you tax the "rich" (>$250,000/yr) at 100% (thats "one hundred percent") and confiscate all of their assets you might balance the budget for one year. What will you do next year? That's why tax increases will have to tear into the bottom 50% of wage-earners. Sorry about that. It's not that I'm a heartless robber baron fatcat lighting cigars with $100 bills, it's math.

"after which Republicans will solemnly claim they were always in favor of it (see: integration, abolition of Jim Crow laws, Medicare, et al)."

jim said...Subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax breaks are circa ten times what PP gets annually

This gets old.

Most of the "subsidies" that oil companies enjoy are tax breaks for losses. That's so they don't have to eat the whole expense of drilling a dry hole. Which by the way can exceed $1000.00 a foot to drill. Letting you keep more of your own money isn't a subsidy.

Yes, and my husband is a composer who has received NEA grants. Government grants for artists beget government approved art.

This is what the NEA does:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35458

I like this part:

The invitation asked a handpicked group of 75 “artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!” The intent was to encourage the artists to think about ways to create arts-focused projects to support the President’s policies in four areas: healthcare, environment and energy, education, and community service.

I find it funny that conservatives are all up in arms about a few hundred million to PP or NEA while they have no problem with pouring $700/billion a year into the military-industrial complex without question.

The real money in the budget is SocSec, Medicare, military, welfare. Those line items take up 70% of the budget. The rest are pet projects like the NEA, PP, farm subsidies and interest on the debt. But go ahead and continue to play politics on the margins.

While I am generally in favor of starving numerous organizations, the President can propose to do it, but it would take the Congress to approve his budgetary proposal--given that the congress if fully in the pockets of all these organizations, it aint going to happen. Sorry for the cynicism, but it is an election year wherein my cynicism meter pegs

Christopher in MA -"Here's a thought, Mitt. Actions speak louder than words. Don't promise. DO."==================Your logic is pretty skewed Chris. Romney is not the incumbent President with the powers of office. Therefore he cannot DO..he can only say what he will do.

Same with any similar exhorations you may have for Ron Paul, Santorum, Newt to stop talking and somehow seize power and DO something!!Though Newt would like it if we could just skip elections and place Newt, who Newt thinks is one of the 5 greatest men in history - in complete control. NOW. So Newt could DO, rather than "just talk".

Your logic might make sense if you were talking about Obama. As in: "Stop making promises of what you will do if you are re-elected. You are IN office. DO IT NOW>

"The real money in the budget is SocSec, Medicare, military, welfare."

Well, with the exception of "welfare" (the definition of which could be argued), the military spending is both the least and specifically provided for in the Constitution. And what is this "budget" of which you speak? Doesn't the Senate need to vote on that?

But, when even a majority of the TEA Party want NO CUTS to Medicare, politicians have to start with something where they MIGHT get SOME support from a population which is hopelessly ignorant and impossibly addicted to a plethora of entitlements.

I find it funny that conservatives are all up in arms about a few hundred million to PP or NEA while they have no problem with pouring $700/billion a year into the military-industrial complex without question

Well, when the shit hits the fan and we are at war or are attacked, I sure as hell will prefer to rely on the military industrial complex and their nifty weapons, than a bunch of whiney liberal pansies who faint at the thought of women not getting free birth control pills and condoms.

I dare you to find a citation that the majority of Tea Partiers want this.

In fact the Tea Party is not even a party that can be polled or examines, but rather it is a movement. And I'll bet you can't find ANYthing that says a majority of a bunch of undetermined people think anything.

SBVOR: both the house and the senate need to vote on the budget, althought the senate hasnt done so in three years. To your point about the military: yes you are correct about the "provide for the common defense" clause--I would only suggest that there are many ways to provide for the common defense that may result in considerable savings.

My perception of NPR is that it’s rather pablum and I don’t listen much...so you would know their tone better than I do.

Their news is slower, less shouting, with cool ambiant sound. The bias is standard MSM - you always know who the Villans and Heroes are, and they're who you'd expect. But the production and pace is enjoyable, even with all the hate.

Maybe it's because I'm a former radio guy. Plus shows like Click and Clack, Garrison Keillor (who also hates me) game shows et al. Good stuff.

Subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax breaks are circa ten times what PP gets annually.

As has been repeatedly pointed out above, this is a totally bogus statistic, based on totally bogus assumptions.

30 years ago, you could make money on drilling for oil, and not really finding much of it, through the tax treatment of drilling expenses. I did a bit of that, but mostly ended up losing.

The major bogus assumption is a failure to understand how businesses work. To simplify, they take money in, and they send it out. If there is more left at the end of the year, if they have taken in more than they have sent out, then they have made a profit, which is taxed by the federal government, either at the corporate level or the individual level (for Sub-S, LLC, etc.)

For oil companies, they drill, sometimes find oil, and when they do, they produce it and sell it. It costs money to drill for oil, and a significant number of the wells they drill will turn up empty, or at least not making back their drilling costs. Pretty much all of the supposed "subsidies" I have seen for oil companies involve how quickly they can write off their exploration and drilling costs. But, over a period of time, all those costs will be written off against income, and so, in the long run, there is no "subsidy". If you can write off a bad well in one year, or in five years, in five years, the cost will have been offset against income.

Now, what really are subsidies, are such things as "earned income" credits, green energy loans, the federal government requiring that the Volt be purchased for its own use, etc. There, we are talking money that wouldn't be otherwise sent to the companies or individuals. And, ditto with Planned Parenthood.

Someone above suggested setting a baseline at somewhere in the past, and going from there. My suggestion would be Jan. 1, 2007, right before the Dems took control of Congress and federal spending exploded. Before the federal government's percentage of GDP jumped by 5%. And, then set the rate of growth to that of GDP. And, not surprisingly, a trillion or so of our deficit every year would disappear. Like magic.

The Left has thrown their weight behind 2 things simultaneously: 1) growing a welfare state supported through the involuntary contributions of the electorate and 2) a publicly and privately-funded infrastructure dedicated to reducing the size of the electorate. How will these two things exist simultaneously?

As for "getting rid of Obamacare" - not just folly, but very expensive folly at that. Insurers will soak their customers for every cent of the cost of yet another major change in conditions of doing business, & the law that might have stopped them from doing so will be gone.

While, magically, its projected costs have apparently doubled, as reported by the GAO this week.

Lying about what ObamaCare might do, or might prevent, and ignoring all of the bad things that it will do, isn't going to raise its popularity one bit with the American public. It was enacted by a razor thin margin, with far more than the winning margin losing reelection in 2010. And, it was enacted by the politicians in charge intentionally lying to the swing Reps. and Sens., including about both the cost and the religious freedom aspects.

So, replaying the lies that won narrow passage of the legislation is not going to help keep it in place next January.

I have not previously commented on military spending (somebody else did). But, I will do so now.

1) I have no doubt that there is fat to be cut in the military bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats are unlikely to cut the bureaucratic fat and are more likely to cut in exactly the wrong places (to our detriment).

2) Unlike entitlement spending, military spending is -- as a % of GDP -- steadily declining.

I have not previously commented on military spending (somebody else did). But, I will do so now.

1) I have no doubt that there is fat to be cut in the military bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats are unlikely to cut the bureaucratic fat and are more likely to cut in exactly the wrong places (to our detriment).

2) Unlike entitlement spending, military spending is -- as a % of GDP -- steadily declining.

================Part true. But we have found that if spending is left up to The Heroes...their own military brass bureacracy has a strong preference for gold plated transport, weapons, logistics systems that do not give much bang for the buck but some very nice plum positions in the defense industry when those colonels, generals, and admirals championing those defense products retire.

As for defense spending declining - only if you accept the argument that the endless nation-building wars of adventure the military brass want, champion, and ask for more and more money for as well as planeloads of money for their "Noble Iraqi, Noble Afghan leaders and allies" shouldn't count.

As if the trillions blown we borrowed from China to pay for the Neocon's wars of adventure, nation-building "shouldn't count against the NORMAL non-war military budget" and magically be outside any budget talk.

No, as Ron Paul says - no matter what the military says - these wars will have to be paid for - and any future wars of adventure and nation-building. "On the backs of our kids and grandkids."

SBVOR - no doubt entitlements are expanding faster then defense, but you can't pretend the defense industry is not partially a welfare program. I mean how many people does it employ in essentially work-fare program?

See the links in my previous comment. If you blindly dismiss the source, see the exact same conclusions from the non-partisan CBO:

"Federal spending on programs other than Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security— including national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—is likely to contribute far less, if anything, to the upward trend in federal outlays as a share of GDP."

Well, instead of being willfully ignorant you could do a quick google search and find Planned Parenthood's Annual Report online. But then of course, you would learn inconvenient facts like only 3% of PP's budget goes toward abortion services and that combined fundraising and management is 16% of their budget, which is about average for U.S. charities

Since I am the only one thus far to use the term "Big Three Entitlements", I assume your comment was directed at me.

Your comment leads me to wonder if you are familiar with the term. Big Three Entitlements refers to:

1) Social Security2) Medicare3) Medicaid

The nation might have survived Social Security (partly because it is far less vulnerable to fraud).

There was never any way in hell we were ever going to survive Medicare and Medicaid. Even without the fraud component, these two would take us down. But, these two are sooo vulnerable to fraud, that the Mafia have forsaken all their traditional rackets to focus entirely on Medicare fraud.

Why? Because every gangster can EASILY make $25,000 per DAY with (other than a few highly publicized token arrests) virtually ZERO chance of going to prison.

I presume there is a reason why teaching biology and, perhaps, risk management, is insufficient for Americans to comprehend the natural order and reality, respectively?

Yes, I know. The treatment of manufactured cognitive dissonance and the dependency it motivates is a very profitable enterprise. As are promises to fulfill dreams of physical, material, and ego instant gratification, principally through redistributive and retributive change, but also through fraudulent and opportunistic exploitation. There is no better way to purchase votes for your cause.

It's either Planned Parenthood or just parents, but someone has to assume responsibility for the children. Despite common perceptions, the latter, before progressive confusion was introduced, have fared better in raising the human lives they conceived.

It's the non-contributory entitlements which pose the greatest challenges to preserving individual dignity and viability of a society. The other entitlements are plagued with waste, fraud, and abuse, and the consequences can mimic fundamental corruption.

Alex - the tab on the Neocon wars is now at 1.3 trillion. As Ron Paul and OMB have stated, though, the actual cost will be about 3 trillion once the interest on the China loans is paid back to them, plus the going forward cost of Vet benefits wounded warrior healthcare, and replacing all the war material we burned out, abandoned in place.

I'm not a Ron Paul backer, but with Newt and Romney and Santorum back in the grip of the Bush/McCain Israel-1st Neocons...he is the only one talking about the actual military costs, plus the real future costs of more Excellent Adventures involving The Heroes Who Go In Harm's Way.

My point exactly. The natural order has implicitly offered guidance for conducting human affairs. Some of it is overridden by the enlightened order (i.e. conscious); but, humans have demonstrated no skill to replace it altogether. Let's hope in our arrogance and in service to dreams of instant gratification we do not promote evolutionary dysfunction. Assuming, of course, that assuring evolutionary fitness and preservation of individual dignity are the goals.

PP's propaganda claims abortions only account for 3% of their "services provided". PP fabricates this figure by counting every condom distributed as being equivalent to every abortion performed. See the fully substantiated facts here:

It's ironic that most of America's wars and military conflicts in the 20th and 21st centuries have been initiated by Democrats. I will qualify that while the leadership was in fact Democrat, it is challenging and, perhaps impossible, to characterize the dynamic which drove the actions.

It's also worth noting that our domestic energy and resource recovery policies are principal drivers of our foreign policy. Not just for America's sake, but also for Europe, China, etc. We will not be able to withdraw, especially tactically, from the world stage until these policies are corrected.

As for Afghanistan, it merited a response following 9/11. And the persistent conflict in Iraq demanded a conclusion. It would have been better to handle it following Desert Storm, but it wasn't then, and it wasn't with Clinton.

In other news, Saint Torum said "pornography??? nekkid bodies of women outside the holy act of procreation in a marriage - being displayed on the Internet, on TV rentals?? I will ban it!"

From the Daily Caller:

If elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.”

“If the government wanted to aggressively move against Internet pornography, it could do so,” explained Volokh. “Here’s the deal: In most parts of the country, a lot of pornography on the Internet would plausibly be seen as obscene.”

Alex said...DBQ - yeah except for the part of the budget that your family benefits from. Remember when you cut the military, you're putting people out of work and onto the welfare rolls==================The same argument can be applied to ANY elimination of a Federal, State, or City government employee position related to money cutbacks.

Not just The Hero Government Employees in Uniform.

Or any cutbacks in entitlements. You cut Planned Parenthood, you cut free hospital care for illegals...well you toss Planned Parenthood workers and illegal's medical caregiver translators and such - RIGHT ON THE WELFARE ROLLS.

Presumably though, The Heroes, the government employees in uniform are all so super bright, skilled, and able-bodied they can find jobs faster than an out of government grant funding abortion counselor can.

Yes. I want them starved of federal money. I can spend it myself much more compassionately, intelligently and honestly. Anyone who thinks they can't has a very low opinion of themselves, and is probably right.

I just sent a crap load of tax money to the state of California today that will go down the crap hole before the electrons making the electronic payment can travel through the fiber optics to get there. That's just CA, and the feds will want four times as much. What a waste of resources.

Presumably though, The Heroes, the government employees in uniform are all so super bright, skilled, and able-bodied they can find jobs faster than an out of government grant funding abortion counselor can. Actually, the problem is the reverse:It takes 15 years to grow a Battalion Commander or Squadron Commander.More than 20 to grow a Wing Commander or Brigade Commander.

At least 25 to grow a General.

You can't just put a resume out to hire a Platoon Sergeant or Command Sergeant Major.

So just like firefighters, you need to be prepared to pay people to train and sit around, because it is better to have and not need, then to need and not have.

And unlike firefighters, the more and better prepared your military is, the less you have to use it.

If seeking a tax increase on wealthier individuals makes for “class warfare”, even Reagan was a class warrior.

Ah yes, I remember good ol' Ronnie railing against the rich to "pay their fair share", implying that they're shirking or cheating the rest of us. I remember him lecturing to us that at some point a person has made enough money.

In other news, Saint Torum said "pornography??? nekkid bodies of women outside the holy act of procreation in a marriage - being displayed on the Internet, on TV rentals?? I will ban it!"

Yeah, and he's getting raked over the coals in the comments forum. On the Daily Caller.

Stick a fork in Santorum-- this is too much, even for most social conservatives. Doesn't he realize that internet porn drives a massive percentage of web traffic? He's just lost 90%+ of the vote from males aged 18-55.

Bruce Hayden is right. The so called tax breaks that oil companies get is nothing more than depreciation on the cost of drilling an oil well. Just like any other capitol expense, a business is allowed to charge an amortized annual amount toward current expenses. This is subtracted from pre-tax income. It is called oil depletion allowance, but there is nothing special or nefarious about it. It's just the oil industry's form of depreciation.

"It takes 15 years to grow a Battalion Commander or Squadron Commander."

I was just reading Churchill's The Story of the Malakand Field Force. One of his conclusions (from his admittedly-young perspective at that point) was that they should have had a higher ration of British to local units in these operations, precisely so that officers and men could get actual fighting experience. But the native forces were far cheaper, so getting either Parliament or the Government of India to go along with that was a losing proposition.

Medicare will run out of money by 2028. SS sometime later about 2034I'm looking down the barrel of retirement and quite frankly i don't like the idea of having younger people on the hook for my maintenance.What we have now is unsustainable. Privatize it let the contributors be responsible for their own investments.

I'll give you an example from the private sector.For years there were only two companies that had the ability to design and build oil refineries anywhere in the world. If wanted to build an oil refinery you had to talk to one of these guys- Standard oil and Universal Oil Products. Why/ because they held the patents on processes that make products.

In the case of Haliburton it's because there is no other company to compete with them except maybe Bechtel. And Haliburton is VERY good at what they do.

You can decry them all you want , but all those guys are at the cutting edge of their industries. They get the contracts because nobody else can compete with them. Their hegemony will last until they have competition.

I collected my first paycheck in 1964 (one year before Medicare and Medicaid became law). So, I have paid into this crap from day one.

I'll go you one better...If Americans had ANY backbone left, they would unanimously demand that we immediately and completely eliminate all entitlements at every level of government.

Unfortunately, the large majority of Americans have no backbone left -- the large majority are hopelessly hooked on Entitlements. And, those Entitlements WILL be the death of all of Western Civilization (within your lifetime and mine) -- it is a mathematical certainty.

If entitlements are really necessary (they probably aren't by the very definition of entitlement) the market will find a way to provide them. If they are charitable necessities churches and personal donations will fund them. If they are worthless they will wither and die, as they should. When the government budget is free of the massive waste and fraud that accompany government spending we will find ourselves with a balanced budget and a flourishing economy.